604 So. 2d 1265 - Steiner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 835 So. 2d 259 - State v. Carter (2002), Van Wagner v. State (1996)
42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 529 So. 2d 726 - Hightower v. State · 566 So. 2d 69 - Young v. State · 574 So. 2d 294 - Kolovrat v. State · Chatman v. State · Stevens v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]robation may be revoked only upon a showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of an order of probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the day of the violation, appellant, his wife Sherry Steiner, and his niece Stacy Steiner, age sixteen years, had been doing laundry at appellant's residence. Appellant's wife, Sherry, was living separate from him because another condition of his probation mandated that he have no contact with the victim of his sexual battery; the victim is his wife's daughter and appellant's stepdaughter. Appellant's niece, Stacy, lives with appellant's wife and her daughter. After Sherry and Stacy finished doing laundry, Sherry left for work. Appellant and his niece left together a few minutes later, so that appellant could go to his probation office visit and Stacy could be dropped off at his wife's home afterwards. Appellant and his niece walked into appellant's probation officer's (PO) office, and the PO noticed that Stacy looked under the age of eighteen. The PO asked Stacy how old she was, and Stacy replied that she was sixteen and would be seventeen in a few months. The PO also confirmed the girl's age with appellant. The probation officer then told appellant that he was in direct violation of a special condition of his community control, and she subsequently filed an affidavit of violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.